Venkataramiah, J. - (1.) The short question involved in this case is whether the members of the All India Services who had retired prior to 1-1-1973 are entitled to payment of gratuity as a part of retirement benefits at the rates specified in the Notification No. 33/12/73-AIS(ii) dated 24-1-1975.
(2.) This appeal by special leave is filed against the decision of the Central Administrative Tribunal dated August 5, 1986 declaring that rule 28(6) of the All India Services (Death-cum-Retirement Benefits) Rules, 1958 insofar as it tended to restrict pensioners to retirement benefits to which they were entitled on the date of their retirement and sought to deny them the benefits of the liberalised pension and gratuity in the amended Notification No. 33/12/73 AIS(ii) dated 24-1-1975 was violative of Article 16 of the Constitution of India and further directing that all the members of the All 'India Services would be entitled to liberalised pensionary benefits including gratuity as per the said notification irrespective of whether they had retired prior to 1-1-1973 or thereafter. The above decision was given by the Central Administrative Tribunal, New Delhi in Regn. No. T-853/85 (C. W. No. 2709/85) which was a petition filed by the All India Services Pensioners Association (Rajasthan) and one R. D. Mathur, an IAS Officer who had retired from service prior to 1-1-1973. The Union of India, the appellant herein, has not questioned the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal insofar as its liability to pay the pension in accordance with the judgment of the Tribunal is concerned. This appeal by special leave is confined only to that part of the order of the Tribunal by which the Union of India is directed to pay gratuity in accordance with the aforesaid notification even to those members of the All India Services who had retired prior to 1-1-1973.
(3.) The crucial point for consideration in this appeal is whether the members of a service who had retired prior to the date on which there is an upward revision of the gratuity on retirement to the members of such service would also be entitled to claim the difference between the gratuity payable to members of such service on such upward revision and the gratuity which had been actually paid to them on their retirement, even though the Government order revising the gratuity does not either expressly or by necessary implication state that the members of the service who had retired earlier should also be paid gratuity at the revised rates because of the decision of this Court in D. S. Nakara v. Union of India (1983) 2 SCR 165. A similar question came up for consideration before this Court in the Andhra Pradesh State Govt. Pensioners Assn. v. State of Andhra Pradesh (1986) 3 SCC 501. The facts of that case are these. The Government of Andhra Pradesh by its order G.O.Ms. No. 88 dated 26-3-1980 directed that retirement gratuity was payable to the officers to whom the said Government order was applicable as follows: "Retirement gratuity may be 1/3rd of pay drawn at the time of retirement for every six monthly service subject to maximum of 20 months' pay limited to Rs. 30,000/-";